politics

to be honest i have not really thought about this post (yeah yeah i know the others seem like so much planning has gone into them...)
but just recently there has been something wrong with politics in this country.
ignoring the hoo had over iraq, but to say that with iraq blair was very much a prime minister, in that he didn't rely of focus groups, he was doing what he believed in and he lead us in to the war. and perhaps is he has been a little more open with the electorate and if the americans had listened to him a little more we would be proclaiming him a hero rather than cursing his name, well not that i do, but well you know what i mean.

it seems tony blair made a terrible mistake when he said he would not be fighting the next general election.
in one fell swoop he took away a lot of his own authority within the new labour parliamentary party.
it has also meant that everything he says and does, every result or breaking news story is seen in the light of blair leaving office.

now blair has been in power since 1997 and perhaps it is too long for anyone person to be in charge (howard in austrailia has been in power longer and looks to be running again). no where more is this evidenced by the fact that new labour seem very keen to cause themselves irrepairable damage as they get accused of sleaze and more.
the current situation is very reminiscent of the last days of thatcher and of john major. when sleaze was the key thing.

couple this with the internal bickering that new labour seems very keen on indulging in and you have a situation where the party is tempting fate and may just implode.

here more than anywhere has new labour shown it has lost touch with theman in the street. this could be because they have been blined by power and money (as nick cohen has argued) or it could just be that being in power for so long makes you feel immune to the laws of the land you are supposed to governing.

yet what is the solution to this problem?
the maximum two terms that american presidents are allowed to run seems like the logical idea - but we only have to look at clinton and w. bush to see how their second terms have turned into being no more than lame duck presidencys. the first one is spent just getting yourself prepared to win the second one. the second term is there to create a legacy...

blair didn't need to say he was standing down, he could have fought a fourth term (and i suspect he would have won it) but he has chosen to stand down, but not say when. so increasingly he is looking like a lost cause as other ministers spin against him and he dillies and dallies about the date.
but all the more become less adn less in touch with populace and so allowing the recent disaster to upsstage new labour.
now the electorate can see that they are not there for the electorate - but their for their own power.

perhaps what we need is that each party can stay in power for as long as it can command the popular vote - but the electorate also get a chace to vote the leader out and vote in another representative of the governing party. so the party of the day can remain in power for as long as it can win the number of votes.
however the leader also has to put himself up for election as well.

not sure it would work - but it does seem that letting any party staying power for a length of time just leads to abuses taking place.

i shall have to think on this some more.